Add a new comment

@Yan Wong: It's a habitat photo and as such extremely useful. But it's probably a good idea to give habitat photos a lower rating in general. We want them in the media collection, but we don't want them to show as exemplars.

@Michаel Frаnkis: Thanks for checking. In fact, I actually meant the php code in the Wikimedia Harvester (much of which I re-wrote). It could be that the harvester caught the file when the wikimedia dump (used in the 1st pass of the harvester) had the file classified under the genetic category, but the online page (via the wiki API which is accessed in the 2nd part of the harvester) had changed to the more specific one. So Katja is right - waiting for the next harvest seems sensible.

@Yan Wong: Can't see anything wrong with your edit at Commons; the only thing I can think of is adding the map category has put it in a queue to reappear in the map section of Diplobatis colombiensis (though it isn't there yet) rather than in the pics section.

@Yan Wong: hm, that is strange. It looks like it was unpublished as soon as it was harvested. This may be a fundamental problem in the way we handle images that have their taxon name changed at the source. I don't think it's universal though since I have seen this work fine for other resources. It may be a problem specific to the Wikimedia Commons resource. I would give it another harvest to see if it fixes itself.

@Scott Ellsworth: Aye, copyright issues can be a complicated mess! You can remove affected photos from EoL by removing them from Flickr, or just by removing them from the EoL group (remove the tags, etc.). The other option is to ask the Museum staff for permission; they may well be happy to allow it for a non-commercial educational site like EoL, but you'd need to include a statement on the pics that permission has been obtained.

Skeletons - hmm, never thought about them! I suspect that since they are natural items they are therefore not copyrightable (just as you can't copyright an animal at a zoo to prevent people publishing photos of it . . . though some zoos try to do so, illegally!!*). But a case could be made too that the work involved in articulating a set of bones into a specimen is copyrightable like a sculpture. I would guess it is safe though, as Wiki Commons has numerous photos of articulated skeletons, and they are pretty careful about copyright issues there.

* I was also told some time ago by a security person at RBG Edinburgh that I wasn't allowed to publish any photos of plants I took in the gardens, only to take them for personal use. An illegal claim, and unenforceable too. Just an empty threat.

@Jeremy Rice: Thanks again, Jeremy. Yes, it looks like things are up now. I knew usually it seemed like it only took about a day, so I thought maybe there was a problem. I don't know if you saw my last post but I still need some advice/guidance as to how to remove some images that are apparently derivative works of images displayed at museums.

@Scott Ellsworth: Harvesting Flickr images is queued nightly, but when lots of other partners are also in the queue (more likely around the 1st and the 15th), it can take as long as three days before the images are ingested. ...Are you still missing images now?

@Michаel Frаnkis: Uh oh. I guess I didn't know enough about copyright law and derivative works. Now I need to know how to remove images that fit that description that made it onto here. Do I just remove them from Flickr? And I also would like to know why images of the skeletons at museums are not considered derivative works since they are essentially sculptures.

@Scott Ellsworth: Actually, a bit of a tricky one for other reasons - the pic of those Megacerops is copyright of the artist at Denver Museum of Nature and Science; you don't unfortunately have any right to reproduce their work and then release it as a derivative work under a creative commons license. In some countries (e.g. Britain, Germany), a work of art like this on public display can be reproduced like this legally (called 'Freedom of Panorama'), but this doesn't apply in the USA, or e.g. France. You can read more about it here at wiki commons. Hope this helps!

@Jeremy Rice: Thanks Jeremy. Things did seem to be working after your last post but now it seems there may be a problem again. Here's an example. Two days ago, I uploaded an image for Megacerops acer on Flickr. There is an EOL page for the species already, and I'm pretty sure I tagged it correctly, but it still hasn't made it to the EOL page. The image is at https://www.flickr.com/photos/113949770@N03/15949192005/. Just thought I'd bring it up again.

@Yan Wong: EOL has a lot of TOLWeb content http://eol.org/content_partners/3 (Katja was largely responsible for coordinating it all both before and after she came to EOL) but it all depends on the particular contributors.